Sex offender register: the judges aren't always wrong

The supreme court has ruled that people on the sex offenders' list in England and Wales should have the right to appeal against indefinite registration. Photograph: Felix Clay

As my closest friends will confirm, this column is quite happy to pull the wig off a passing judge if it suspects that he or she is playing to the gallery, being any combination of arrogant, irresponsible or unaccountable, or seeking to expand the remit of the court by mission creep. It happens everywhere, part of an eternal battle.

Here we are again in slightly mutated form. The supreme court in London – opposite parliament just to the west of Westminster Abbey – has ruled that around 20,000 people on the sex offenders' register (England and Wales) for life should have the right to appeal against indefinite registration on the grounds that three quarters don't re-offend and the punishment is thus "disproportionate".

Actually, the supreme court reached its decision, confirming those of lower courts, some months ago, but the affair is back in the news because ministers have decided to comply – albeit at a minimalist level of compliance that makes successful case reviews that much less likely.

The Tories are determined to muddle the issue with Britain's sometimes fraught relationship with the European court of human rights (ECHR) and the EU's own court of justice (ECJ) in Strasbourg. The ECHR has also ruled that a lack of any review process is a breach of the right to a private family life.

Senior British judges have also begun to question the court's ambitions and the competence of some judicial appointees. But just because judges agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong – or even that those foreign courts are wrong.

The ECJ ruled the other week in favour of Portsmouth landlady, Karen Murphy, when she bought a cheap Greek TV deal to get Premiership football for her customers – thereby stuffing Sky. Ha, ha!

Paedophiles can be stubbornly adamant that what they do to children is OK and rapists can be thoroughly nasty psychopaths. As with murder, some cases are so brutal, some people so far beyond redemption, that I sometimes wonder if it might be better if they were hanged, kinder to the perpetrators too in a way rather than let them rot behind bars.

But that's not the issue. The law is the law and the evidence appears to suggest that the public – as distinct from the tabloids – will not be at greater risk if, after 15 years, an applicant does get his (it's usually a him) name removed from the register.

Adults who abuse children stay on the register for life – "we can never be sure their behaviour will change", says the NSPCC, which welcomes the court's decision. With children abusing children there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. Other experts seem to agree.

But Tory ministers are cross and I cannot help but wonder if part of their calculation is that by making a fuss over this one they placate the Daily Mail and Murdoch press – both angry, even the Times — as well as please their own restless rightwing.

As a bonus they annoy the Lib Dems, who are keen on the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, despite it being Labour.

Alas, on Wednesday the new shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, in case you had forgotten, was as cross as the Tories. Sex offenders have few friends ("Are tabloids serial sex offenders? Discuss"), so it's an easy target. Watch out when the political class is in broad agreement: it's usually wrong!

So ministers plan to tighten the rules governing the way offenders live their lives. They will have to report trips abroad (even for one day, instead of the current three); they will have to re-register if they change their name (a current loophole, the Mail reports); and paedophiles and rapists will have to alert the authorities whenever they move into a house containing minors.

Nasty stuff perhaps, but remember these are usually people who have done things that are far nastier.

What interests me at a more abstract level is Cameron's announcement – confirmed by May – that ministers are setting up a commission to examine a British bill of rights, in parallel with a party commission that will draw up policy options to restrict the ECHR's remit in this country. It's one for the 2015 manifesto where they may need some eye-catching populism to deflect from the economy.

As with his pre-election pandering to the right over the European parliament (the breakaway Tory-led group-lette has had its troubles) this is short-term party management which stores up long-term problems.

The PM has since proved himself highly pragmatic in Europe and is now on better terms with Angela Merkel and even with Nicolas Sarkozy, who is a bit of an IED.

The Tory right notes all this and sees through his current UK sovereignty bill as window-dressing. Not only are the Lib Dems pro-human rights, both Ken Clarke and the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, know this is a minefield they do not wish to cross.

Cameron is proving himself adept at being prime minister in a public sense. But he is bad at party management, so sensible Tory MPs keep reminding me. He is also being forced to take a tighter Blair-like grip on Whitehall departments where his ministers are making cock-ups, as ministers do.